LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 75th Regular Session February 25, 1997 TO: Honorable Teel Bivins, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 136 Committee on Education By: Bivins Senate Austin, Texas FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB136 ( Relating to placement of a student who is expelled from public school in a juvenile justice alternative education program.) this office has detemined the following: Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB136-As Introduced Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a net negative impact of $(7,461,720) to General Revenue Related Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999. The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill. The bill would require the juvenile courts in 22 counties with populations of 125,000 to place all students expelled from the public schools in Juvenile Justice Alternative Schools. Fiscal Analysis This bill requires all students expelled from schools to be placed in Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPs) in the counties that are mandated to provide JJAEPs. As provided, if juvenile courts are required to adjudicate all students expelled, the number of county probation officers would increase to supervise the additional students adjudicated. Methodolgy The Texas Education Agency's 1995-96 school year Safe Schools Survey totaled 5,601 expulsions statewide, of which slightly more than half (3,569) were reported as the total number of expulsions by school districts in the 22 mandated counties. Further analysis of the TEA data trends statewide show "serious or persistent misbehavior" (Section 37.007 [b], Education Code) as the most frequently cited reason for student expulsions--4,036 expulsions out of a total of 6,210 reported from 841 school districts, including all urban and 63 out of 65 major suburban districts. The second most frequently cited reasons for student expulsions (2,055) were for all other serious offenses listed in Section 37.007 (a), (c), (d) and (f) of the Education Code. For the 1996-97 school year, based on January 1997 total student enrollment (1,144) in Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs, the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission now projects that approximately 2,300 total expelled adjudicated students will be served in the 22 mandated county programs during the school year. JJAEP enrollment projections have steadily declined since September 1996 estimates. Some slowdown has been due to lack of space available in county facilities, and to a narrowly defined implementation of the statute (e.g., only those students committing certain offenses on school property). Also, most counties and districts did not include provision in their memoranda of understanding for the larger population of "serious and persistent" misbehavior students who are not adjudicated for less serious (Class C) offenses. Data from the Texas Education Agency Chapter 37 survey on 1995-96 expulsions show that districts in the 22 mandated counties reported 3,569 total expelled students during the school year. Assuming that the difference between the 2,300 current projected JJAEP figure and the 3,569 actual students expelled figure were a good estimate on the number of students not currently required to attend JJAEPs (i.e., "serious and persistent misbehavior" expelled students), the estimates on this bill use the figure 1,269 to approximate the potential additional population of students to be served in JJAEPs under this bill. If 1,269 ADA are retained in the public school system instead of expelled and are multiplied by an average half-year expulsion period at $4,900 per student per year regular program costs ($2,450), the cost to the state would be approximately $3,109,050 per year for the additional students required to remain in the system. If 1,269 additional juveniles are adjudicated and added to the case load for probation supervision, based on current probation costs of $490 per juvenile per year, the cost to the state would be an additional $621,810 per year for hiring more probation officers. The annual additional costs would total $3,730,860. These estimates are for students in districts in the 22 mandated counties only; costs would be greater if applied to all districts and counties statewide. The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions of the bill during each of the first five years following passage is estimated as follows: Five Year Impact: Fiscal Year Probable Savings/(Cost) from General Revenue Fund 0001 1998 ($3,730,860) 1998 (3,730,860) 2000 (3,730,860) 2001 (3,730,860) 2002 (3,730,860) Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds: The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds during each of the first five years is estimated as follows: Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative) General Revenue Related Funds Funds 1998 ($3,730,860) 1999 (3,730,860) 2000 (3,730,860) 2001 (3,730,860) 2002 (3,730,860) Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. The bill would imply additional costs for facilities in some counties, based on the available space in currently leased or purchased facilities for JJAEP programs, to accommodate the increase in JJAEP student enrollments. Other increases in programs and operating costs would be covered under current statutory provisions for flow-through funding from the school district to the county on a per student basis for programs and services, as negotiated between each school district and the county. Source: Agencies: 665 Juvenile Probation Commission 701 Texas Education Agency - Administration LBB Staff: JK ,LP ,DH ,TH